Pecan

Funnily enough, I use MJ all the time but do edit manoeuvre nodes with the mouse. One of the reasons I use MJ is for the deltaV stats so why use KER when you've already got that? Rhetorical question as actually quite a few people use a combination of KER, MJ and VOID to provide different information or just for the different formats. Probably the preferred mod for fine-tuning manoeuvres is Precise Node although I've never got on with it. You've probably picked the two most widely wanted things there though; more information and better node-editing. Next most popular would (probably) be more/more interesting planets and moons and then a whole raft of visual enhancements and gameplay features - from the commsats already mentioned to life-support and everything else mods have added. [Not particularly sought-after by most people but my pet peeve is the lack of a sane tech-tree, without which I don't play outside my sandbox; you can't please everyone ^^]

If you can't fly it and MJ can't fly it you probably want to start with something a bit smaller than a space station in one go. Possibly teaching you to suck eggs but it's your first post so I don't know what experience you have: first get something into space, then into orbit. Once you can reliably orbit you can start to get ambitious - and go back to smaller stuff when it doesn't work, which it won't, until you get the hang of design my practicing lots and lots of stuff.

You'll do best if you learn to use the suggestions in OhioBob's answer. If they aren't enough for you - MechJeb will do it everything you want, from simply telling you when to go, through plotting the manoeuvre for you to flying it for you if you ask it to.

Oh yeah, you're an addict. There is a mod therapy for that. On the development front, as Starhawk said, KSP is still being actively developed although it is already more than Squad and Harvester ever imagined. The mod/information most of us have asked for is deltaV in the VAB/SPH, even if not in-flight, as it's an essential design figure. Squad aren't so keen because they don't want KSP to be 'just about numbers'. More generally they're a bit reluctant to tell us too much about their plans because if they happen to mention they're thinking about something there's immediately a huge - and volatile - debate/argument/row about how whether it must/mustn't be done at all and in any case not in any way the community agrees on (thinking of you, crew specialisations and training!). What we have just had is a change to the new(er) Unity 5 engine which, unfortunately for Squad, became available not long after the official 1.0 launch. That made it look like Squad had stopped doing many updates, as an engine change is a huge undertaking and it look a long time. New boosters are now strapped on, what happens if you press that Big Red Button ...?

Mk1 Command pod, 2 x FL-T800s and an LV-T45 ("swivel", since they all got silly names) still SSTOs perfectly. Might need 2 - 4 basic fins, depending on your flying but the engine gimbal does most of the work. Add a decoupler under the pod and a parachute on top of it and you can even come back again - although that's beyond the requirements you stated.

Nice experimentation :-) Note though that TWR is dependent on, er, weight - so it changes according to which body you're orbiting. Normally that doesn't matter in the slightest but for something that has to land on or launch from a planet/moon you'd better make sure those engines are powerful enough as well as fuel-efficient. [Not saying there's anything wrong with your analysis, just making the point that TWR, unlike dV, depends on where you are]

There and back in a day, or so ... http://doctorwhoone.deviantart.com/art/Red-Dwarf-Ace-Rimmer-308669338

Yep. Single Stage To Orbit. It's easier to understand than rocket science. Typically I'd call anything that can go down and back up a reusable lander and I wouldn't care if it needs to refuel on the surface or leaves some stuff there (once - it's a payload as Sharpy said). That's just me though.

Welcome. If you are asking which is the best place to write about your adventure it's probably http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/forum/51-mission-reports/. General chat about what you might do in discussion and questions in, er, gameplay questions.

I hate launching anything with an M700. Anyway ... for me, all launches circularise in Kerbin orbit just to get their breath back. It's a good photo opportunity for the newer recruits too, while they wait for their tug or ferry to collect them. Yes, it is slightly cheaper to burn directly to your destination instead of stopping in Kerbin orbit before transferring. The latter is an awful lot easier and more reliable though and both of them are hugely expensive compared to building a reusable infrastructure.

Kerbin Examiner: Top 5 reasons vehicles go missing: Joy riders Towed-away (no parking zone) Lithobraking Kraken 'Because'

Those figures suggest strange design opinions to me ^^. Try Minmus < 30t or, as a starter, either moon < 45t. 3 stages should be plenty. We are, however, hijacking this welcome thread - (anyone) feel free to PM me if you think it's worth making a "lightest moon-landing" challenge thread. @classicaljazzman apologies for the intrusion ;-0

I'll call you out on that. Before you accuse too many people of being liars or having strange opinions you might like to provide some evidence. So, by what evidence would you support your claim that Mun is easier to land on than Minmus? If you have no evidence I would suggest it is you who are the liar. If you claim it is because plane-change is really hard (as you appeared to above) I suggest it is you who has a strange opinion. If you claim you can do it in a simpler or smaller vehicle I will challenge you to build one [your Mun vs my Minmus]. If you claim it is easier to find a place to land I will just laugh. It is quicker though, I'll give you that ^^. Point: This forum is possibly not like the ones you are used to. KSP is not about shooting things down (usually) but about making things work ... eventually. On the forum we don't shoot things down either, we make them work ... eventually.

Lucky they incorporated that then. At least on PC - are you on a different system?

If you have a 64-bit system and don't have more than 4GB memory, you should reassess your purchase decision (ie; buy some more RAM).

Well, you know, the launcher has funky ideas about things. Try it at your own risk if you wish, I'd always download and keep the backup (in fact, I have every version since 0.23, except 1.12 for some reason).

Press C to enter/leave IVA, press V to cycle through each passenger. Don't know about that passenger module specifically but all the ones I've tried recently work. Yes, you can add small ships on and with docking ports then fly in and out. If they're using command seats instead of pods you'll have to EVA the Kerbals and fly them near the seats with backpack RCS. (Right-click the seat and 'board' once you're close enough). Really tiny one-man vehicles with a command seat can be very handy - even making return Mun landings from Mun orbit. The hotel does not need meals, only an infinite supply of snacks. The only drink required is the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster.

You do need to reinstall it, but that is a great advantage because you can have both. Rename the existing KSP folder, eg; with the version number Download and install the new version Play both/either.

Leaving aside the question of available memory, no. Therefore, leaving aside mods, no. Want mods = need memory = 64-bit. Apart from that, you've got them both so why wouldn't you run 64-bit?

The patcher is broken, and always has been, but the launcher is merely useless AFAIK. It works but doesn't do anything you need anyway, unless you *gasp* never visit the forums.

I started this thread to flag the PCGamer's article use of KSP. Pretty good that this is the standard they instantly think of, despite the fact they "don't aspire to the same goals", as it states. That said, in reviews of both NMS and Elite I'm getting the same impression - there might be lots of planets and they might be very different from each other but apart from just looking at them there isn't any more reason to visit them than KSP's. The point the article is making, I think, is that at least KSP gives you a construction challenge in reaching the planets and, therefore, more of a sense of purpose and achievement. And KSP is cheaper! *grin*

No Man's Sky (NMS) has lots of planets, full of life. PCGamer says they enjoy visiting KSP's 7 more, even if there isn't much to do on them: "Kerbal Space Program and No Man's Sky don't aspire to the same goals, but there's a lot that can be learned from the dopey little kerbals and their obsession with dying on other planets. Compared to No Man's Sky and Elite: Dangerous, Kerbal Space Program's planets are barren, waxy balls of nothing. Yet the moment I landed my first kerbal on the 'Mun' (moon), I really felt like a little green Neil Armstrong making one giant leap for kerbalkind." http://www.pcgamer.com/what-no-mans-sky-could-learn-about-exploration-from-kerbal-space-program/

Oooh, nice find and precision. Is it worth it though - since you don't know exactly where your CoM will be anyway, as it moves as fuel burns/mono is expended?

THE jet engine? There are several. Jet engines burn Liquid Fuel (LF) and get their Oxidiser (O) from the atmosphere. Conversely, rocket engines burn Liquid Fuel AND Oxidiser (LFO) so are not dependent on the atmosphere. Except the Rapier - which is specifically designed to work in open (LF, jet) or closed (LFO, rocket) as required. If you're modding another engine the details for the rapier are probably the best place to start or, perhaps now you know that's there, you don't even need to mod one of the others. (It's your first post, so I don't know how much experience with KSP or modding you have). Welcome to the forums.

Just stop hating yourself and play in a different game mode. Sandbox if you just want to have fun. Science if you can't cope with the choice of all of the parts from start. Plus, if you continue on PC - for no extra cost - you can add mods that make things you don't enjoy easier, like MJ for rendezvous or landing. Why pay all over again?